Adverse Leader Selection & Evaluation

Leadership Matters

Leadership

Critical to the success of individuals, teams, organizations, and society at large
Strong incentives to place the right person in charge
Despite this importance and the strong incentives at play…

We fail to select the best leaders

50 to 75% of selected leaders fail

Adverse Leader Selection

The wrong people make it to the top; the right people do not
- Leader over-emergence & leader under-emergence
Leader emergence vs. leader effectiveness is…
- Higher: Leader over-emergence
- Lower: Leader under-emergence

Costs to Leadership Failure

Financial costs
- $750,000 to 5 million per failed executive
Psychological costs
- 75% of working adults: Boss is most stressful aspect of the job
- 70% of US workers: Would pay to have their boss fired
- Bosses are often the primary reasons employees quit
Societal costs
- Leadership scandals & ethical lapses
- Military disasters

Why Are We So Bad At This?!

Leadership

Why the wrong people make it to the top, and the right people do not…

Trait lens

Ambition

Behavior lens

(Un)certainty displays

Process lens

Opt-in selection mechanisms

Trait

A Legend In One’s Own Mind: The Missing Link Between Ambition and Leader Effectiveness

Ambition ➙ Leader Emergence

Ambition is “a persistent and generalized striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment”
Ambitious individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders
- Higher levels of education
- Higher GPA
- More prestigious occupations
- Higher ranking positions
- Higher salaries
But are ambitious individuals also more effective in leadership roles?

Dali

Ambition ➙ Leader Effectiveness?

Self-awareness

Self-awareness: Individuals struggle to gauge their own effectiveness

Self-serving biases: Individuals often have inflated self-perceptions

Motivated reasoning: Allure of incentives

H1: Ambition is positively associated with self-rated leader effectiveness

H2: Ambition is not associated with other-rated leader effectiveness

To answer this question, we rely on three lines of reasoning.

First, we know from the literature on self-awareness that individuals tend to struggle with making accurate self-assessments. It is generally hard to form accurate appraisals of our own leadership effectiveness.

Second, we know from research on self-serving biases that individuals tend to have inflated self-perceptions.

Third, leadership roles come with highly appealing rewards – for example, money, status, autonomy, and authority. And the allure of these incentives may lead individuals to engage in motivated reasoning, where ambitious individuals who are drawn to leadership roles for reasons unrelated to their effectiveness may inflate their self-perceptions to justify their high ambition.

In other words, we expect that ambitious individuals are more likely to fall prone to motivated reasoning, which reduces self-awareness, inflates self-perceptions, and causes a gap between self-assessments and third party-assessments of their leadership effectiveness.

Based on this reasoning, we posit two hypotheses. Our first hypothesis is that there’s a positive relationship between ambition and self-rated leader effectiveness. Our second hypothesis is that there’s a null relationship between ambition and third-party ratings of leadership effectiveness.

Is Ambition Well-Calibrated?

Study 1A & 1B: 360-degree assessments of executives
- N ratings = 3,813
- N leaders = 468
- Raters = Self, peers, subordinates, and managers
Study 2: Leadership competition among MBA students
- N ratings = 829
- N leaders = 181
- Raters = Expert judges
Study 3: Leadership task with random assignment of a nationally representative sample
- N ratings = 305
- N leaders = 101
- Raters = Group members

Analytic Approach

Null Hypothesis: No relationship between ambition and third-party ratings

Alternative Hypothesis: A relationship between ambition and third-party ratings

Null Hypothesis Significance Tests
Statistical Equivalence Tests
Bayesian Statistics

Can we reject the null hypothesis?
p < .05: Reject the null hypothesis
- Interpreted as evidence for the alternative
p > .05 : Inconclusive
- “Fail to reject” the null
- Cannot be used to accept the null

Can we reject the presence of a meaningful effect?
p < .05: Reject the presence of a meaningful effect
- Conclude statistical equivalence
- Declare absence of a meaningful effect
p > .05: Inconclusive
- “Fail to reject” the presence of a meaningful effect
- Cannot be used to declare presence of a meaningful effect

Can we accept the null hypothesis?
Bayes factors: How much do the data support the null hypothesis?
$BF_{0} > 1$: support for the null hypothesis over the alternative
- Accept the null, reject the alternative
$BF_{0} < 1$: support for the alternative hypothesis over the null
- Accept the alternative, reject the null

A quick overview of our analytic approach. As you may recall, our second hypothesis is a null hypothesis—we propose that there is no relationship between ambition and third-party ratings of leadership effectiveness.

To assess the evidence for this hypothesis, we use a combination of three analytic techniques: null hypothesis significance tests, statistical equivalence tests, and Bayesian statistics.

When running significance tests, the main question that we can answer is “can we reject the null hypothesis”? If we obtain a p-value less than .05, we reject the null hypothesis, which we often interpret as indirect evidence for the alternative. If we obtain a p value greater than .05, however, the result is inconclusive. We fail to reject the null, and cannot accept the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between ambition and third-party ratings.

Because the null hypothesis is core to our theorizing, we complement this traditional approach with two other tests. The first is a statistical equivalence test. When running an equivalence test, the main question that we can answer is “can we reject the presence of a meaningful effect”? When we obtain a p-value less than .05, we reject the presence of a meaningful effect and conclude statistical equivalence: this means that third-party ratings are equivalent regardless of a leader’s level of ambition. In other words, we can declare that a meaningful effect is absent.

Our third test relies on Bayesian statistics. Here, we can also answer the question “can we accept the null hypothesis”? To answer this question, we compute Bayes Factors, which express how much the data support the null hypothesis over the alternative. If the Bayes Factor in favor of the null is greater than 1, this means that the data are more likely under the null hypothesis than under the alternative, and you accept the null as a result.

Study 1A & 1B

360-degree leadership assessments completed by executives’ managers, peers, and subordinates
Show details
- The proprietary 360-degree assessment includes 50 items assessing
  10 leadership competencies (e.g., motivation, communication)
- Two sample items for the motivation competency are
  “Motivates others to put forth greater effort” and
  “Recognizes others’ contributions”
Executives reported a self-assessment and their ambition
Show items
- My ultimate career aspiration is to be in a position of senior leadership
- I have strong ambition when it comes to my career goals
- I am highly motivated to get promoted quickly and often
- I want my job to be highly respected by others
- I am determined to have a highly successful career
- It’s important to me to attain a high-status position in my career
- I do NOT have a strong desire to advance far in my career (R)
Study 1A: N = 1,371 ratings
- n = 177 self-ratings
- n = 1,194 other-ratings
Study 1B: N = 2,442 ratings
- n = 291 self-ratings
- n = 2,151 other-ratings

Positive relationship between ambition and self-ratings of leadership effectiveness

Study 1A: b = 0.09, 95% CI [0.03, 0.16], t(175.04) = 2.85, p = .005
Study 1B: b = 0.08, 95% CI [0.03, 0.13], t(288.95) = 3.05, p = .003

Null relationship between ambition and other-ratings of leadership effectiveness

Study 1A: b = 0.04, 95% CI [$-0.01$, $0.08$], t(172.57) = 1.46, p = .146
Study 1B: b = 0.01, 95% CI [$-0.03$, $0.04$], t(289.02) = 0.41, p = .680
Third-party ratings of leader effectiveness are statistically equivalent, regardless of ambition
Show details
- 1A: Test against $\beta \pm .20$, t(172.57) = $-6.82$, p < .001
- 1B: Test against $\beta \pm .20$, t(289.02) = $-10.26$, p < .001
Bayes Factors show support for the null hypothesis
Show details
- 1A: $BF_{01}$ = 6.29
- 1B: $BF_{01}$ = 20.40
- The data are 6 to 20 times as likely under a null model

For hypothesis 1, we predicted a positive relationship between ambition and self-ratings of leadership effectiveness. We ran mixed effects models predicting self-assessments from ambition, and find support for this hypothesis in both Study 1A and study 1B.

For hypothesis 2, we predicted a null relationship between ambition and third-party ratings of leadership effectiveness. We ran mixed effects models predicting third-party assessments from ambition, and we find a nonsignificant relationship in both Study 1A and study 1B.

To be able to claim support for the null hypothesis, we ran two additional tests. First, we ran an equivalence test. This test allowed us to declare, in both studies, the absence of a meaningful relationship between ambition and third-party ratings of leader effectiveness. Second, we calculated Bayes Factors, which allow us to quantify how much the data support the null hypothesis. We find that the data are 6 to 20 times as likely under the null hypothesis than under the alternative hypothesis.

Study 2

Expert-evaluated leadership skills competition
Show items
- This person has all the qualities that would make them an effective leader
- This person would succeed as a leader in my company
N = 829 ratings of 181 MBA students

H2: Null relationship between ambition and other-ratings of leadership effectiveness

b = $-0.06$, 95% CI [$-0.16$, $0.04$], t(175.09) = $-1.18$, p = .241
Third-party ratings of leader effectiveness are statistically equivalent, regardless of ambition
Show details
- Significant test against $\beta =.20$, t(175.09) = $-5.04$, p < .001
- Significant test against $\beta = -.20$, t(175.09) = $2.69$, p = .004
Bayes Factors show support for the null hypothesis
Show details
- $BF_{01}$ = 3.64
- The data are over 3 times as likely under a null model

Study 3

Group decision-making task with randomly assigned leaders vs. followers
Nationally representative sample: N = 305 ratings of 101 group leaders
Show items
- I would want this person to be my boss or supervisor at work
- This person has clear leadership potential
- Overall, this person was NOT an effective leader (R)
- If I had the chance, I would definitely want to have this person as my leader again
- Looking ahead, I expect this person will experience great success as a leader

H2: Null relationship between ambition and other-ratings of leadership effectiveness

b = $-0.06$, 95% CI [$-0.18$, $0.06$], t(98.99) = $-1.02$, p = .312
Third-party ratings of leader effectiveness are statistically equivalent, regardless of ambition
Show details
- Significant test against $\beta = .20$, t(98.99) = $-4.36$, p < .001
- Significant test against $\beta =-.20$, t(98.99) = $2.33$, p = .011
Bayes Factors show support for the null hypothesis
Show details
- $BF_{01}$ = 3.98
- The data are about 4 times as likely under a null model

Uncalibrated Ambition

Ambitious individuals are judged as no more effective in leadership roles

Executives rated by peers, subordinates, and managers in a 360-degree assessment
MBA students judged by experts in a leadership skills competition
A nationally representative sample of U.S. adults leading a small team in a leadership task

However…

Ambitious individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders
Ambitious individuals report more positive views of their leadership effectiveness

Emergence-Effectiveness Gap

Ambition is uncalibrated to actual effectiveness
Ambitious individuals over-emerge as leaders

Why Does This Matter?

50 to 75 percent of selected leaders fail
Leader selection mechanism is often “opt-in”
- Self-selection into candidate pool
- Assumption: those with the greatest leadership potential will apply
- We show that this assumption may be unfounded
We may need an alternative approach to leader selection and development
- How can we select the best future leaders?

Now, why does this matter?

A pretty shocking estimate in the literature is that 50 to 75 percent of selected leaders fail. Even though groups have strong incentives to place the right person in charge, and they strive to do so, they often fail. Now, why do we so often fail? Our work suggests that, in part, the fault lies in the processes we use to select leaders.

Leader selection mechanisms are often opt-in: individuals must actively choose to be considered for leadership roles. The underlying assumption is that those with the greatest leadership potential will apply. Across four studies, we show that this assumption may be unfounded.

Rather than allowing ambitious individuals to dominate candidate pools for leadership roles, society may need an alternative approach to leadership development and selection. In the future, we hope to identify a systematic lever that can foster diversity in upper-level positions and promote workplace advancement for individuals with high leadership potential.

Behavior

Does Expressing Uncertainty Help or Harm Leaders?

Leader-Expressed Uncertainty

“Society tends to attribute authority to those who convey certainty
rather than to those who emphasize uncertainty”

Past research outlines two opposing positions:

Expressing uncertainty is detrimental to leaders’ social influence
Expressing uncertainty is beneficial to leaders’ social influence

How can we reconcile these two perspectives?

Social Influence

“The ability of one person to influence the attitudes and behavior of another”

Uncertainty May Harm Leader Influence

Competence-signaling account

Expressing confidence is effective across a wide range of social settings
- Courtroom, military, political arena, hiring committees…
Advice-giving
- Confident advice is more likely to be followed, regardless of accuracy/quality
- Physicians, brokers, consultants, therapists, peer reviewers…
Presumption of calibration
- A person’s expressed confidence corresponds to their actual competence

Uncertainty May Harm Leader Influence

Leadership-prototypes account

Implicit assumptions about the traits, abilities, and behaviors that characterize an ideal leader
- “Implicit leadership theories” or “leadership prototypes”
Humans hold highly romanticized, heroic views of leadership
- Charisma
- Dominance
- Assertiveness
- Expertise
- Confidence

Uncertainty May Harm Leader Influence

Taken together, the competence-signaling and leadership-prototypes accounts suggest…

Hypothesis 1: Leader-expressed uncertainty has a negative effect on leader social influence

Perceiver attitudes (H1a)
Perceiver behaviors (H1b)

Uncertainty May Benefit Leader Influence

Humble leadership

Showing “humanness”: admitting limitations and knowledge gaps

Authentic leadership

Knowing and acting upon true values, beliefs, integrity, and strengths
Involves self-awareness: authentic leaders are conscious of knowledge gaps

Vulnerability and self-disclosure

Disclosing personal limitations and weaknesses

Positive outcomes of humility, authenticity, vulnerability, and self-disclosure include…

Trust, liking, engagement, psychological safety, feedback seeking, knowledge and information sharing, job satisfaction, job and task performance, creativity, organizational citizenship behavior, job retention, team learning

Uncertainty May Benefit Leader Influence

Taken together, the literatures on humility, authenticity, vulnerability, and self-disclosure suggest…

Hypothesis 2: Leader-expressed uncertainty has a positive effect on leader social influence

Perceiver attitudes (H2a)
Perceiver behaviors (H2b)

Help, Harm, or… Both?

Literature may be reconciled by examining nonlinear effects
Curvilinear effects have been theorized, but most empirical studies rely on binary measures of (over)confidence
“Too-much-of-a-good thing” effects are pervasive in leadership research
- Seemingly positive relations that become flat or negative after reaching a specific inflection point
  
  Show examples of TMGT effects
  Agency, communion, decision latitude, empathy, empowering leadership, ethical leadership, intelligence, optimism, participative leadership, psychopathy, tenure, unpleasantness, voice, warmth
- Assertiveness & charisma: involve confident communication
Perils of overconfidence; observers prefer calibration in confidence and communication
- Expressing uncertainty when appropriate
- Job applicants, collaborators, advisors, eyewitnesses, managers…

Costs of Miscalibrated Confidence

Miscalibration of confidence harms…

Perceived credibility
Perceived value to the team
Perceived desirability
Trust
Willingness to collaborate
Willingness to follow

Help, Harm, or… Both?

Taken together, too-much-of-a-good thing effects, perils of overconfidence, and preferences for calibration suggest…

Hypothesis 3: Leader-expressed uncertainty has a curvilinear (inverse U-shaped) effect on leader social influence

Perceiver attitudes (H3a)
Perceiver behaviors (H3b)

Meta-Analysis

Studies that manipulate or measure expressed uncertainty
- Include a zero-order effect for an interpersonal outcome
- Minimize common-method bias (split-samples/time lags)
Obtained correlation in support of H1/H2
- Recoded to express effect of uncertainty
Random-effects meta-analysis
- k = 20 studies
- m = 87 effect sizes
- N = 28,594 subjects

Meta-Analysis

Meta-Analysis: H1

Meta-Analysis: H2

Meta-Analysis: Takeaways

Meta-analytic estimate of the interpersonal effect of expressed uncertainty

H1 (negative): r = $-$.26, 95% CI [$-$.30, $-$.23]
H2 (positive): r = .13, 95% CI [.07, .20]

We suggest a non-linear test (H3)
to reconcile these conflicting results

Methods

Five between-subjects experiments
- S1: Decoding game
- S2: Emotion estimation game
- S3: Anagram game
- S4: Signaling game
- S5: Prediction game
Experimentally manipulate leader-expressed uncertainty
Three core attitudinal outcomes
- Leader effectiveness, warmth, competence
Three core behavioral outcomes
- Advice-following/performance, leader selection, leader reward
Incentive-compatible
- Prespecified bonus for each correct answer

Manipulating Uncertainty

On a 9-point scale ranging from highly certain (-4) to highly uncertain (+4)
Three types of uncertainty expressions
- Calibrated scale (“On a 1-9 scale, where 1 = highly uncertain and 9 = highly certain, my certainty level is a 7”)
- Percentages (“I am 80% sure”)
- Colloquial, qualitative statements (“I am absolutely convinced”)
Relied on a novel computational measure of certainty in language: the Certainty Lexicon

Manipulation Pretests

Five pretests (N = 2,098) to obtain appropriately ordered stimuli
Participants rated the uncertainty expressed by several stimuli
Obtained four successful manipulations
- Calibrated scale
- Percentage statements
- Two qualitative manipulations
Qualitative statements pretested using the Certainty Lexicon and human participants

Calibrated Scale

On a 1-9 scale (where 1 = highly uncertain and 9 = highly certain), …

Uncertainty Condition	Statement
-4	My certainty level is a 9
-3	My certainty level is an 8
-2	My certainty level is a 7
-1	My certainty level is a 6
0	My certainty level is a 5
1	My certainty level is a 4
2	My certainty level is a 3
3	My certainty level is a 2
4	My certainty level is a 1

Calibrated Scale

On a 1-9 scale (where 1 = highly uncertain and 9 = highly certain), …

Uncertainty Condition	Statement	Median Rating	Mean Rating
-4	My certainty level is a 9	-4	-3.26
-3	My certainty level is an 8	-3	-2.42
-2	My certainty level is a 7	-2	-1.67
-1	My certainty level is a 6	-1	-0.77
0	My certainty level is a 5	0	-0.10
1	My certainty level is a 4	1	1.08
2	My certainty level is a 3	2	1.76
3	My certainty level is a 2	3	2.79
4	My certainty level is a 1	4	2.55

Percentage Scale

Uncertainty Condition	Statement
-4	I am 99% sure that
-3	I am 90% sure that
-2	I am 80% sure that
-1	I am 60% sure that
0	I am 50% sure that
1	I am 40% sure that
2	I am 20% sure that
3	I am 10% sure that
4	I am 1% sure that

Percentage Scale

Uncertainty Condition	Statement	Median Rating	Mean Rating
-4	I am 99% sure that	-4	-3.18
-3	I am 90% sure that	-3	-2.47
-2	I am 80% sure that	-2	-1.81
-1	I am 60% sure that	-1	-0.65
0	I am 50% sure that	0	0.08
1	I am 40% sure that	1	0.97
2	I am 20% sure that	2	1.83
3	I am 10% sure that	3	2.24
4	I am 1% sure that	4	3.61

Qualitative Scale 1

Uncertainty Condition	Statement
-4	I am absolutely convinced that
-3	I am convinced that
-2	I am reasonably convinced that
-1	I am partly convinced that
0	I am examining whether or not
1	I am reasonably unconvinced whether
2	I am unconvinced whether or not
3	I am desperately unconvinced whether
4	I’m genuinely unsure. I’m desperately unconvinced whether

Qualitative Scale 1

Uncertainty Condition	Statement	Median Rating	Mean Rating
-4	I am absolutely convinced that	-4	-3.30
-3	I am convinced that	-3	-2.02
-2	I am reasonably convinced that	-2	-1.36
-1	I am partly convinced that	-1	-0.22
0	I am examining whether or not	0	0.22
1	I am reasonably unconvinced whether	1	0.44
2	I am unconvinced whether or not	2	1.35
3	I am desperately unconvinced whether	3	1.44
4	I’m genuinely unsure. I’m desperately unconvinced whether	4	3.02

Qualitative Scale 1

Uncertainty Condition	Statement	Median Rating	Mean Rating	Lexicon Score
-4	I am absolutely convinced that	-4	-3.30	-2.95
-3	I am convinced that	-3	-2.02	-2.38
-2	I am reasonably convinced that	-2	-1.36	-1.55
-1	I am partly convinced that	-1	-0.22	-0.80
0	I am examining whether or not	0	0.22	-0.17
1	I am reasonably unconvinced whether	1	0.44	0.37
2	I am unconvinced whether or not	2	1.35	1.08
3	I am desperately unconvinced whether	3	1.44	1.66
4	I’m genuinely unsure. I’m desperately unconvinced whether	4	3.02	2.88

Qualitative Scale 2

Uncertainty Condition	Statement
-4	I am absolutely convinced that
-3	I am convinced that
-2	I am reasonably convinced that
-1	I am generally convinced that
0	I am examining whether
1	I am generally unconvinced whether
2	I am unconvinced whether or not
3	I am desperately unconvinced whether
4	I seriously don’t know… I’m desperately unconvinced whether

Qualitative Scale 2

Uncertainty Condition	Statement	Median Rating	Mean Rating
-4	I am absolutely convinced that	-4	-3.30
-3	I am convinced that	-3	-2.02
-2	I am reasonably convinced that	-2	-1.36
-1	I am generally convinced that	-1	-1.18
0	I am examining whether	0	0.16
1	I am generally unconvinced whether	1	0.24
2	I am unconvinced whether or not	2	1.35
3	I am desperately unconvinced whether	3	1.44
4	I seriously don’t know… I’m desperately unconvinced whether	4	2.93

Qualitative Scale 2

Uncertainty Condition	Statement	Median Rating	Mean Rating	Lexicon Score
-4	I am absolutely convinced that	-4	-3.30	-2.95
-3	I am convinced that	-3	-2.02	-2.38
-2	I am reasonably convinced that	-2	-1.36	-1.55
-1	I am generally convinced that	-1	-1.18	-1.37
0	I am examining whether	0	0.16	-0.83
1	I am generally unconvinced whether	1	0.24	0.64
2	I am unconvinced whether or not	2	1.35	1.08
3	I am desperately unconvinced whether	3	1.44	1.66
4	I seriously don’t know… I’m desperately unconvinced whether	4	2.93	3.03

Manipulation Pretests

Experimental Design and Procedure

Five designs to confirm generalizability across different experimental tasks
Prolific participants randomly assigned to one of five experimental designs
- Within each design, randomly assigned to one of nine experimental conditions
- 6,000 participants; 1,200 per design; $\pm$ 133 per condition
Three-round incentivized game ($0.50 per correct answer)
Paired with a leader who gives advice expressed in varying degrees of uncertainty
Advice quality and accuracy held constant
Measure attitudinal and behavioral consequences of leader-expressed uncertainty

Attitudinal Outcomes

7-point scales (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
Leader effectiveness

Show items
The focal manager “is a good leader”, “has strong leadership skills”, and “has the ability to lead other people”
Warmth

Show items
The focal manager is “friendly”, “well-intentioned”, “trustworthy”, “warm”, “good-natured”, and “sincere”
Competence

Show items
The focal manager is “competent”, “capable”, “independent”, “intelligent”, and “skillful”

Behavioral Outcomes

Advice-following/performance

Show items
In each round, we obtain a dichotomous measure indicating whether participants choose the leader’s recommended strategy (0 = no, 1 = yes). We sum the three separate indicators into a single measure of advice-following
Leader selection

Show items
At the end of three rounds, participants move on to a new incentivized game and are asked whether they would like to keep the same team leader or be paired with a new team leader (whose performance is similar). We obtain a single dichotomous measure indicating whether participants choose to keep the same leader (leader selection: 0 = no, 1 = yes)
Leader reward

Show items
Participants are asked how much, if anything, they would like to award the leader, on a bonus payment slider ranging from $0 to $5

Analysis plan

Assess linear effects of leader-expressed uncertainty (separately for each outcome)
Show details
- Five separate linear regression models
- Random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled effect size estimate
- Evidence for H1: Pooled estimate significant and negative
- Evidence for H2: Pooled estimate significant and positive
Assess nonlinear effects of leader-expressed uncertainty (separately for each outcome)
Show details
- Five separate two-lines tests
- Random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled effect size estimate
- Evidence for H3
  - Pooled estimate of 1st line positive and significant; and
  - Pooled estimate of 2nd line negative and significant
Bayesian analysis if both tests are inconclusive for a particular outcome

Adverse Leader Selection & Evaluation

Leadership Matters

We fail to select the best leaders

Adverse Leader Selection

Costs to Leadership Failure

Why Are We So Bad At This?!

Trait

A Legend In One’s Own Mind: The Missing Link Between Ambition and Leader Effectiveness

Ambition ➙ Leader Emergence

Ambition ➙ Leader Effectiveness?

Is Ambition Well-Calibrated?

Analytic Approach

Study 1A & 1B

Study 1: Results

Study 2

Study 3

Uncalibrated Ambition

Why Does This Matter?

Behavior

Does Expressing Uncertainty Help or Harm Leaders?

Leader-Expressed Uncertainty

Social Influence

Uncertainty May Harm Leader Influence

Competence-signaling account

Uncertainty May Harm Leader Influence

Leadership-prototypes account

Uncertainty May Harm Leader Influence

Uncertainty May Benefit Leader Influence

Uncertainty May Benefit Leader Influence

Help, Harm, or… Both?

Costs of Miscalibrated Confidence

Help, Harm, or… Both?

Meta-Analysis

Meta-Analysis

Meta-Analysis: H1

Meta-Analysis: H2

Meta-Analysis: Takeaways

Methods

Manipulating Uncertainty

Manipulation Pretests

Calibrated Scale

Calibrated Scale

Percentage Scale

Percentage Scale

Qualitative Scale 1

Qualitative Scale 1

Qualitative Scale 1

Qualitative Scale 2

Qualitative Scale 2

Qualitative Scale 2

Manipulation Pretests

Experimental Design and Procedure

Attitudinal Outcomes

Behavioral Outcomes

Analysis plan

Process

Who Shall Lead? The Effectiveness Implications of Self-Selection into Leadership Roles